Atheism Handbook Found

Ever since joining Hub Pages, I have read the forums and been struck with how repetitive and somewhat outlandish I find some of the arguments to be against God. I couldn't understand them so I went in search of the answers. Apparently some are reading from a handbook that lists the top four reason for disbelief.

As a public service I have decided to share them here. This is probably not news to most of you who have had to fend off these outlandish questions, but once I realized how little thought goes into the nay say posts, I thought I should share the information found.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL- Simply, 'What about all the starving children?' I find this argument to be most offensive. Since it ignores the fact that we are responsible to help our fellow man.How this could be used for an argument against God is a mystery.

THE PARADOX OF THE STONE - This one would be funny, if not for the fact that someone would actually consider it to be an arguument.

GOD IS AN EMOTIONAL CRUTCH- Again, funny. Theists posting appear to be emotionally stable. Very rarely do I consider them in need of a crutch, so the argument appears invalid.

CHRISTIANITY IS OFFENSIVELY EXCLUSIVE- I suppose that might be true, but I find it difficult to understand how it is more exclusive than atheism. It appears to me that the pot is calling the kettle black.

No, but that does seem more odd than the paradox question. Do you know why they have them? I was in Ireland a couple of years ago and I didn't notice. It would have been nice to ask a local that question.

You are exactly right. The rituals the group as a whole impose on others is little more than that. This has nothing to do with the core belief a person has. It actually hinders the search for understanding in many ways.

1. The problem of evil is a contradiction problem. The current view is that it's our responsability to take care of eachother, however, the god of the bible is very active on the destiny of humanity. The great flood was intentended by him to kill most living things. Is that not evil? If he once influenced our own enviroment to kill almost everyone why doesn't he do the opposite now or always, in a global miracle (instead of catastrophe) to save thousands?

If you believe in god as in the bible or other holy book, it's assumed you believe in a god who participates in the course of humanity, otherwise it'd be foolish to worship him and pray.

2. I don't think this is much of an argument (never seen it used as one) but more of a puzzling question.

3. Your point makes no sense. People who use crutches are stable while they use them, that's what they're for. They become unstable when you take them away. Therefore, the fact that someone is emotionally stable believing in god could mean that they're using religion as a crutch. This is not an argument against the general concept of god, it's an argument against the fact that you feel god is considered to some people proof enough that it exists.

4. You find it difficult to understand because you have a false idea about atheism.

Perhaps you could take a moment to enlighten me. I think atheism is simply non belief in the idea of any form of deity, at it's simplest.

You cannot prove, or disprove, God on a personal level. Why would we argue that point? I see these examples as created to stop a conversation; not disprove God.

Using them to stop the Jehovah Witness at the door sounds like a fun way to spend an afternoon, but not valid arguments that could be used to make someone rethink such a personal decision, or one's that are worthy of dialogue. I'm simply surprised they are used so repeatedly.

That is because you turn a blind eye to the damage believers in a god do to us and our society.

How funny that you think because you cannot disprove something - believing in the something should carry equal weight to not believing in the something. I bet you don't use this logic when deciding whether to leave a building by a third floor window or the front door.

Tell you what - you stop claiming there is a god - I stop making fun of your irrational and impossible belief.

Deal?

All though - let us be honest here - you do not actually want answers to this question because you ignore them when they are given.

What you are really wanting to do is convince us that your ridiculous belief in the Star Goat is perfectly valid and no more or less rational than those who say they do not believe in the Star Goat.

I am attempting to remove religion from our society. You apparently agree that this is a desirable thing and also agree that religion is harmful.

You also are religious and need to propagate that. This means a strong internal contradiction that requires a good dose of denial. You are prepared to go to great lengths to do this. You even claim that your public beliefs are actually personal - and are prepared to deceive your self in this matter.

I am pointing that out in the hope that - one day - people will keep their religious beliefs "personal" instead of public - like yours are.

I am certainly open to suggestions as to how I might help facilitate this, but having tried explaining the bible, rational discussion, reason and logic - believers tell me (as you have done) that I simply do not understand and "god" is outside of logic, reason and rational discussion - I feel my only option is ridicule.

As it seems to do not disagree with my goal - merely my methods - I am genuinely interested to hear how you suggest we might accomplish the goal of removing religion.

I am not a sports fan. I don't like rules, I don't like competition, I hate how professional sports are overpayed, etc. Does that make me an exclusive group of people who share their dislike towards sports? I don't like lettuce, is that another group? I don't exclude anyone for liking sports. If the subject comes into play, I will argue against sport because it is my opinion. What else should I do? Stay quiet and nod in false agreement?

In principle, being an atheist is not a collective group per se. Movements against religion are no different than movements against slavery, death penalty, or any other doctrines that once were the norm and are now not accepted.

You can prove god resides in the brain. You can artificially produce experiences of god with a machine. And as I stated before, this doesn't disprove the existence of god but it hands other possible and more likely explanations as to why would a particular person believe in god. You don't need to absolutely without a doubt destroy one theory to make another one valid. The Earth could very well be flat and resting on a turtle's back, but that would imply a huuuuuge conspiracy theory beyond belief. which makes the idea of the world being round much, much more likely.

"Since it ignores the fact that we are responsible to help our fellow man."

That doesn't excuse God from inaction. An All Powerful being inherently possesses All Responsibility. You're also ignoring that most Christians claim that God heals sick people on a regular basis and performs miracles and blesses people. If God is willing to get rid of all evil than why are there still parents lowering their children into the cold ground after their kid loses a battle with cancer? If he's all powerful than he must chose not to act. Again ALL POWER = ALL RESPONSIBILITY. This argument stems from Epicurus, its been around for centuries, it doesn't originate with the "handbook" you've found.

I was never fond of the rock analogy, I only rarely bring it up with theists, so I wouldn't count it as one of the main atheist arguments.

God as an emotional crutch isn't an argument, its an observation. Many people do use God as a crutch, I know that when I was a Christian and I was depressed I would remind myself that God was out there somewhere and loved me and nothing else mattered. Rather than solving my own problems I could call on God.

"It appears to me that the pot is calling the kettle black."

Atheism is merely a lack of belief, it is no more exclusive than theism is, meaning not at all. All babies, for instance, are atheists, as they have no belief in god and that's the definition of atheism. There are also Buddhist atheists, atheists who believe in ghosts and aliens, even some who reject Evolution. So atheism is not exclusive, all one has to do is lack belief in god(s).

Repetitive, because believers keep repeating the same nonsensical and magical arguments over and over again.

In other words, when arguments from reality are presented to you, you don't understand them. Clearly, from your OP, you aren't looking for answers as you have dismissed out of hand many answers provided to you, and instead, you have chosen to create a fallacious thread.

LOL! This should be good.

No mystery at all, theists love to dismiss this when they thank their gods for all their abundance, completely ignoring the plight of others. And, while this is so simple to understand, it is an utter mystery to believers. Of course, the real reason why believers dismiss it out hand and blame mankind is the fact that they will never accept their gods having these kind of faults and flaws.

Considering you are dismissing out of hand that which afflicts you yourself, that would be understandable. Denial is one of the most prominent components of any believers arguments.

No, Christianity is as offensive as many other religions, it is not alone in that regard. Funny how you consider the non-belief in your god offensive, but do not consider your own non-belief in all the other gods offensive. Quite funny.

Of course they will. However, the definition of "valid" has been seriously warped and twisted in this regard.

Interesting to note that rather than dealing with the subject matter, you continue to focus on the members here, almost as if you were paranoid about something. Is that the case? Do you feel there is a conspiracy here? LOL!

This is great! And as a Christian, I happened to write a hub addressing at least two of these top four reasons for disbelief. Please read it. I appreciate the time you've taken to share here. And follow me if you'd like to. Thanks for starting the great conversation!

[sigh]There's no atheist handbook. The 'lack of thought' you mention is on the believers side.

WOC's blanket statement; "No, their arguments are not valid against God." is an excellent example of this.

NOTE: I'm not knocking WOC. Her viewpoint is her own.

What's brought up mainly deals with the 'Holy Bible', the omni characteristics, and the statements of theists- "God is Love" and other drivel.

Theists are atheist with all the deity[ies] they lack belief in. Atheists don't give the particular theists deity[ies] special treatment.

The Problem of Evil is a light-weight counter against "God is Good" and "God Loves us each and every one" as well as the promises concerning prayer, et al.,. God watches each starving child die {omnipresent}. Not only that, but the child's death was scripted {Omniscient}. There are ramifications, and repercussions, to stated attributes as well as being the sole source 'Manufacturer'.

You're welcome to find that particular argument offensive-as well as myriad others. [shrug]

The Paradox of the Stone is accurate. I'm sorry you didn't understand it. Let me explain. This one deals with the Omnipotent attribute. Omni=all. Such is all or nothing. There is no in-between.

Omnipotent=all powerful. The stone paradox illuminates the internal contradiction of the stated attribute; meaning it fails under the weight of its internal contradiction(s).

God is an emotional crutch. Again, you didn't understand it, so I'll explain {I've not heard emotional crutch before}. During a highly emotional event/threat environment the theist may (individually dependent) call upon their deity for help. This may bring the emotional level(s) down to a point where they may be able to find a route through the situation.

--JCCHRISTIANITY IS OFFENSIVELY EXCLUSIVE- I suppose that might be true, but I find it difficult to understand how it is more exclusive than atheism. It appears to me that the pot is calling the kettle black. --JC

Offensively Exclusive? {This one is new to me, too}. I'd be interested as to what site you got this from. I can see several different ways it can be utilized.

I'll give a reply a shot via the shortest reply avenue. Either a person is Christian or they are not. If one is a Christian they may, or may not, end up in Hell for eternity. If one is not a Christian, they will end up in Hell for eternity.

There are a multitude of religions which promise dire eternal consequences for not worshiping them. This is a problem for Christians-the 'Wrong Hell' factor.

There's nothing exclusive about the lack of theism. If a person is a theist-fine. If a person isn't a theist-fine. If a person is a theist-they're not going to be 'roasted for eternity' or roasted at all.

Let me remind you: Theists are atheist with regard to all the deity[ies] they lack belief in. Atheists don't give the particular theists' deity[ies] special treatment.

Yes, I understand why atheists use these as an argument, but that is all it will ever be. You can't prove it either way. I posted this basically to share the information. Seems silly to keep rehashing the same thing repeatedly. To me, anyway.

Then Xians should stop with the same ignoring points raised which show the problems with what Xians constantly natter.

If you folks are going to continue your tactics, then people are going to continue to show where what you folks natter is terminally worthless and erroneous.

The Xian mind numbingly boring red herring about 'proof' illustrates acknowledgement of the problems the replies made are accurate. If the replies weren't accurate-Xians certainly would be demonstrating where the error(s) were.

There are Xians I have a lot of respect for. You, and several others here, are not among them. These latter Xians are to be, imo, pitied as they can't even recognize opposition points raised. These points must be hand waved away.

I've made these same points several times since I've been here. More than likely a couple of times to your posts. I have yet to get a reply with substance.

Immediately below is your opening paragraph for this thread:

"Ever since joining Hub Pages, I have read the forums and been struck with how repetitive and somewhat outlandish I find some of the arguments to be against God."

Once again, I took the time to make a solid reply. Once again, the reply was hand waved away-as I expected.

Let me use your opening paragraph as may be seen by a person with a different viewpoint.

Ever since joining Hub Pages, I have read the forums and been struck with how repetitive, childish, irrational and highly amusing I find the nattering about a fictional stone and bronze deity construct called 'God'.

No matter how horrifying the actions of this fantasy figure is it matters not to those afflicted with this toddler level malaise. No reason, objective evidence, logic tracks, affects the continuous metaphorical train wreck.

Its fascinating to observe in all its horrific insanity. Even those who have continually been maligned by this insanity claim that said 'entity' "loves them" {the degree of malignment may or may not apply to a Xian who reads this post .}

If one chooses to 'credit' any successes to said 'entity' then they had best 'credit' it for all the failures, too.

"Those who believe in a god are selfish. Plain and simple. A little irony thrown in- they do not see their own selfishness."

Indeed. After all, the universe rotates around each and every one of these folks. The prime goal is to obtain the 'prize' of eternal life in 'Heaven.' There isn't anything, or anyone, they won't sacrifice in the pursuit of this booby prize. And, yet, they insist they're 'humble.'

There ya go. Figure that one out. Cags said we are selfish. You forgot that one.

To answer your question, no. Their arguments are not valid. I have posted articles for them about how the medical supplies and food that are being sent to the needy are being stolen, to be told it is all lies. They can not understand that God works thru people, unfortunately so does Satan.

Thanks for putting your two cents worth in. I do have a question, maybe you could answer. I agree with what you said about not being able to make any one believe. Why do you think some of the atheist posters are so radical in trying to make us not believe? They seem, at times, more zealous than any tent revival preacher.

All I could possibly do is take a guess. Some times I try to put myself in some one elses place to try to understand how they feel or think, but, I believe in God. I believe in Jesus. I can't imagine not doing so. I can't think of anything off hand that I don't believe in.

My guess would be that they have had bad experiences with believers. Maybe some one kept pushing them, which would only push them away.Why they would care that we believe and want to change our beliefs? I would need to know them personally to take a good guess. We know that Satan also works thru people. He wants to win the souls of the believers.The Bible does tell us that in the last days these things would happen.

Generally speaking ---An atheist, as the name suggests, is a meme of a former theistic approach to either lifestyle or ideology based on "why" we exist, be it Catholicism, Christianity, Buddhism, what-have-you. It is from such previous beliefs that atheists firmly and "religiously" denounce their former indulgence. As i have reasoned often, atheism is an angered teenager, who --by their own admission-- consider the theology they engaged --at any level-- insufficient. Insufficient at providing an absolution for their behavior, mentality or progressive attitude toward a desired effect.

They are acutely zealous because within them is an unsatisfied query. A Query that their teachers of this practice were unable/unwilling to provide a provincial (fashionable) and conclusive solace to a passionate --but useless-- humanism philosophy.

Such "radical" behavior is a result of the aforementioned and the addition of suggestive ideologies that also do not provide but at the same time attempt to provide an escape of response, responsibility and a temporal provision of comfort/satisfaction.

To everything there is an equal or opposing action/reaction.This is the mind of a teenager, sorting out their position and establishing their condition.Sadly, the result --as with their former indulgence -- is assimilation into an identical but polar expression of the same originating ideology. Alas, not one atheist can provide validity of experience --from their former que or present one --and so resort to tormenting themselves by lashing out --non violently of course-- at their post-relata (via cynicism, rudeness, quotes from their former theistic texts, etc.)

And ironically, they are as good at preaching as the preachers they once viewed in high regard...

Would you mind explaining how would you expect anyone to provide validity in such way? How can you experience the non-existence of god? or anything at all for that matter.

If atheists are teens, then theists are kids who still think they're the center of the world, craving to feel special and be recognized by a parent-figure.

As annoying as teens can be, it's a part of becoming mature and letting go of something, realizing that the world is not made for us, and that mommy and daddy are not that great, and are not going to be there forever.

Perhaps atheist rebellion is a necessity to enter adulthood and stop depending so much on someone else looking after us.

Another similarity between theism and childhood is the fact that kids are not aware of their own eventual death until they grow up.

I would ask the atheist to provide validity precisely as I do a theist.Provide validity by experience -either method of sensation or equation.Experience is your testimony, validity.

Theists -- claim a testimony (experience) but in actuality are stealing -yes stealing- someone else testimony. If fact the one they say did such things on their behalf. According to the text, they are to overcome or did overcome their limitation (mind; ego) by the: blood of the man shed (the work) and --what closely -- the words of their testimony. Yet they use his testimony as their validity. They have no experience to provide. They have not tested the "spirit" by all available measures, methods, expressions to prove the work true.

By the same token, not one atheist, during their visit to a theism has tested completely; rigorously, by all available methods-- and in most cases barely (if at all) truly engaged the theism they were apart of, to see if it was or was not true --and certainly not afterward...

So, where is the testimony / experience / validity beyond books, quotes, anger, distaste, someone else experience or situation and thoughts, ego, etc. Can either a theist or atheist provide such? That is my query.

Yes. I can. I have personally experienced what the theists call "god" and it is no such thing. Personally. Me. Engaged and experienced. Beyond books, quotes, anger, distaste, pieces of plastic. At length. No god. No outside personality. No eternal life. No continuation of awareness. No me. Awesome and impossible to function in reality whilst experiencing it. False light - painful. Awareness - a million fold.

All? I doubt it. I don't know all available. Maybe. All roads lead to Rome so - yes - in a way. Does it make any difference if the road is African dance, yoga, martial arts or monastic life? Probably not - they seem to come from and go to the same place.

Can I provide? Sure - Practice Aikido for 3 hours 5 times a week for 20 years and let me know when you are not there any more. We can move on to the next step.

Theist: Proving god...Can't be done...God is an experience. All the feelings in the world will not change that... I cannot let someone else feel what I feel. It just isn't possible. I completed a Hard task because god assisted.

Atheist: Proving no god...Can't be done...Can't prove or disprove something not there. All the feelings receive can be explained as part of who I am...Humans have feelings...I completed a hard task because I got off my butt and figured it out.

Both sides are correct as per thier beliefs or knowledge.

Example: I find dark hair women "attractive"....A good male friend of mine finds himself "attractive"... We both find something "attractive" and it brings us "enjoyment" Are we wrong? No we just have different tastes in what we find "attractive"... Now when my good friend attempts to make me think that he is more "attractive" than my dark haired women, then we begin to have problems...He starts imposing in my personal life and interupts my "enjoyment" which causing me to experience something other than "enjoyment"

You have been taught that your god can't be disproved, but that's not actually true.

Theists base this argument on the logic that if you see Tommy, he definitely was there, but if you did not, he still might have been.

That doesn't really apply to gods. "Tommy" is known to exist - that's why he could be there even if you didn't see him. However, if other facts are brought in (Tommy was in Paris at the time of the observation), we can indeed prove that Tommy was not there.

In the same vein, when other observed facts are brought in, we can indeed prove that any god - all gods - cannot and do not exist. All are logically impossible, almost all are also logically incoherent and self-contradictory.

DS, he cannot comprehend that possibility --as most present or post "sensationalists" or "equationists" cannot. Their "reason" is constantly necessitated. Expressed by stereotypes and labels. Else, their absolution fails simply because they cannot justify their position, mentality, ideologies or thinking without such hackneyed expressions. And that failure is obviously (and no doubt) painfully confusing to them.

There is no such thing as a duck.But, again you prove my point, PC, -another human label for a creature you know nothing about --you only pretend to. Welcome to your post-theism. Pretend is so much better than reality for you, isn't it. Reality bites, because reality is beyond humanistic comprehension: (example --the label of a duck applied).

times up . you and your humanism just ran out. click, click. buzzzzzzzzzz.

In one respect you are correct, it is dying and you along with it. (in case you hadn't figured that out yet). So, I guess your "good" riddance is in order, yes? Perhaps the riddance of your theism and their theism is what's required to bring humanity to its knees and end this game of silliness once and for all. The end of sensation & equation. A restoration like no other man has ever encountered in his 250,000 years (according to the masculine science- Ism) or 6,000 (according to the feminine sensitive- Ism). Either way, enjoy the time you (plural) have left. Both sides of The Ism are nearly done.

JC, may I call you JC?(stinks not knowing the person behind the avatar)You are closer to the truth than you think.The problem is only one: humanism.The expression of the problem is, well, for lack of a better word --complicated. The removal of both is just astoundingly probable and foreseeable...

I asked how does anyone provide personal experience of a lack of something.

You went on to explain how someone can experience the existence of something.

Please explain this time how do you or anyone, experience the lack of elves, gods, whatever.

"I would ask the atheist to provide validity precisely as I do a theist.Provide validity by experience -either method of sensation or equation.Experience is your testimony, validity."

Personal experience is no proof of anything. Go to a psychiatric hospital and you'll see.

"By the same token, not one atheist, during their visit to a theism has tested completely; rigorously, by all available methods-- and in most cases barely (if at all) truly engaged the theism they were apart of, to see if it was or was not true --and certainly not afterward..."

So you've met all atheists in the history of humanity, good for you. There have been scientists who, by new methods (that I'd guess you haven't tried), have made people, both believers and non-believers, see images of god and have religious experiences.

That assumes that every atheist used to be a theist; and that you must also dedicate fully and by all means possible in the search of unicorns, elves, fairies, Zeus, Mythras, Allah, the Loch Ness Monster, crop circles, try to be abducted by aliens, big etc. until you have an experience of the absence of them (which you must still explain how that works) in order to disregard them as fantasy?

--21 daysGenerally speaking ---An atheist, as the name suggests, is a meme of a former theistic approach to either lifestyle or ideology based on "why" we exist, be it Catholicism, Christianity, Buddhism, what-have-you. It is from such previous beliefs that atheists firmly and "religiously" denounce their former indulgence. As i have reasoned often, atheism is an angered teenager, who --by their own admission-- consider the theology they engaged --at any level-- insufficient. Insufficient at providing an absolution for their behavior, mentality or progressive attitude toward a desired effect.

They are acutely zealous because within them is an unsatisfied query. A Query that their teachers of this practice were unable/unwilling to provide a provincial (fashionable) and conclusive solace to a passionate --but useless-- humanism philosophy. --21days

( by the way, your justification of me being a theist, proves you don't know anything I have said and how deeply "mystic" you post-theists are. You are only using your limited post-theistic drivel --the identical things I explained-- to argue with a seasoned philosopher. Better "luck" next time son. )

oh yea? not trying to keep others from God huh? When my brother was sucked in to Lambs Road Church, i asked him if i could go to church with him, and he said no, because being a christian was his thing. Thank goodness he has come to his senses since then, but even though i supported his belief, he would have rather had me stay home than hear "the message"

I personally love it when people post honestly. At least I know where they are coming from. Atheism or theism is simply a choice. I don't understand why it has to be considered a wrong choice by the guy posting behind you. I don't mind talking about it, but I get frustrated when people post things that aren't meant to be discussed.

Pink, I am sorry to hear that. Ya can't think all Thiest are the same no more than we can think all athiests are the same. All Christians I know love to bring others to church. Maybe your brother was unsure of his beliefs?

no, he just had nothing to hang on to. someone saw that in him, and turned him into a fanatic. He was depressed. Only when he broke from the church did he find who he really is. He is an amazing person, and lost touch with me because his pastor was telling him that i was "secular" and that he should not be close to someone who was not christian and who didnt want to be christian. Something about being unequally yoked. which i think is b.s.

Pink, my little brother and sister were told to stay away from me by their mother and the church because I listened to "World Music." Which mean't anything that wasn't Christian. I was looked at as a bad influence.

Cagsil, I know I could never explain this in a way that you would believe me, but the concept of Christianity has nothing to do with putting oneself above another. If that is what you think, then I can certainly understand your post.

Because, most actions taken will not be for the betterment or benefit of humankind. Therefore, every time someone dies, having done nothing to better the world around them, then they have selfishly lived their life at the cost of ruining the human species, because they didn't love or have compassion for others. If every person in the world was completely selfish, then the destruction of the human species would be inevitable.

Well, I suppose that would be true, if it were true. What about the religious organizations that work for the good of mankind? What about the churches that send the money to the religious organizations that work for the good of mankind? What about Habitat for Humanity, which is a Christian sponsored organization? I, personally, don't belong to a church but I have attempted to help many people in need during these tyring economic times. Out of a compassion for my fellow man.

Why don't you check on the research yourself with regards to the church and what exactly they spend on organizations versus what is actually brought into the church as far as revenue. Then, you've an answer to that question.

However, I know any non-profit or charity in the U.S. as of 2000, were not meeting the Federal Regulations guidelines. Therefore, none of them met the minimum standard guideline. It's pathetic.I said the belief in a god that provides an afterlife is selfish. If you do more to better your fellow humans' life, while you live. That's good. You should. It's the belief itself that is selfish.

You are right...Christian Beliefs have nothing to do with putting yourself over an other...but sadly that is just what is happening quite often...People who claim to be christians consider themselves "better" than someone who doesn't believe the same as them...This doesn't apply to all of them.. but a majority do.

Hi Double Scorpion. I'm glad you posted. You seem like a guy that has studied a lot about religion, has an open mind both ways. What do you think? Are these valid arguments against a deity, or just conundrums meant to put a log jam in the discussion.

Belief in a Divine being is purely a Spiritual thing....and is a very personal connection...Those who believe will never see the "faults" and those who don't believe will never see the "truth" Physical proof of a Spiritual thing is just not possible...Those who don't believe don't understand why those that do believe do, and those who do believe don't understand why those who don't believe don't. And both side will always attempt to justify or prove thier beliefs. The question you must ask yourself is...Do they make a valid point and if so why? And why are they asking something that I don't know the answer to? If a person studies and has complete confidence in thier beliefs, nothing is likely to shake that belief.

Edit: And sometimes it is just a test to see if you really know what you claim to believe.

Thanks for answering. I agree with you that it isn't possible to show either way and it is a personal thing. It has been a curiosity to me on this site how adamantly people feel about the topic. I had never put much thought into how one might perceive the belief of another affected their lives. It's been an eye opener.

Interesting to see you in the religious forums. However, I sure your selfish behavior with regards to your snacks is just one of few traits you have. And, since I'm all too familiar with many of the other things included in that statement, I will leave it there. But, it was nice to see you Julie.

GOD IS AN EMOTIONAL CRUTCH- Again, funny. Theists posting appear to be emotionally stable. Very rarely do I consider them in need of a crutch, so the argument appears invalid.

Theists have an emotional crutch in their religion and with it are seemingly stable. You do not consider them to be in need of a crutch because they already have one and don't need another. Your comment is invalid because you ignore that the crutch is already there.

Most theists seem to have a need to moral and ethical guidance. They are apparently unable to deduce what is moral and what is not without such orders from above and are willing to accept what is obviously (to the rest of us) immoral orders as moral.

If that is correct, it would seem that they have no concept of morals or ethics without their religion. Without any moral or ethical structure, then yes, I would consider them to be emotionally unstable.

Actually, I would probably disagree on that point I think many Christians (I can't speak for other theists) have an over developed sense of what is right and wrong. I know, for myself, that things others consider Ok are still wrong for me, whether the church teaches it or not.

The church need not actually teach, in a formal sense, right and wrong (although they often do) for religion to play an enormous part in deciding what is right and wrong. Plus, of course, you may be the exception blah blah blah.

No, the church has too many times been ,kicking and screaming, into teaching correct ethical standards after centuries of teaching immorality and having it accepted as God's truth and therefore "right" somehow. Those billions of folks that accepted such obscene teachings both formal and informal were obviously unable to tell the difference between right and wrong themselves and had to accept what they were given from above.

Many, many billions, although I go back a few years. How many believed in the crusades? Or the inquisition tactics? Or slavery? How many believed that women are substandard citizens? Or that gays are evil? Or that witches needed persecuted and killed? Today they remove our most revered ancestors from the history books because they weren't mythologists.

Nor do I except other religions - how many whacko muslims wish only to kill Americans? Or kill little girls for going to school? Or stone to death women for infidelity?

All either actively promoted by the church or at least condoned and promoted "under the table" as being ordained by God and therefore "right". Religion has a history of being almost amoral when it comes to maintaining and expanding their power base and membership and the people accept it without complaint, unable to distinguish right from wrong.

Yes. Religion provides a great deal of happiness, comfort and support to a great many people. It is truly unfortunate that organized churches have such a stranglehold on it and use it to control, harm or destroy others in the name of God.

Of course, in the final analysis it is the people of religion that allow and encourage such things.

Perhaps it is a sign of their emotional instability that they so often say one thing and do another?

Yes, I do believe organized religion is a bane to society at times. And people need to think for themselves, but that is a problem across the entire spectrum of society.

You are right, in the final analysis those who follow are as responsible as the ones who lead,.

But the ones who say one thing and do another? I wouldn't call them emotionally unstable. I think I'd call them schmucks. Plenty of those in and outside of religion. Few people go their own path in the world. Most people need to be a part of a crowd of some sort and will do whatever they think makes them look good to their click. At the cost of honesty, or decency sometimes.

Which said you were neither theist or atheist, as I recall. You're a thinking guy. I'm curious. Do you think the questions have merit in arguing about the existence of any god? I know the question was poised to theists, but atheists have posted too. I assume you classify yourself as agnostic. Maybe not. Whatever you are, what do you think?

There is no argument. By all accounts there should be no discussion of it, because in actuality there isn't a true need for the human species to have a belief in a god. It's only one's failure to understand one's own life, which gives one reason to form such a belief.

Yes, but you are talking Pentacostal. That's a whole other can of worms in my opinion.

I admit, if a person stepped away from faith they would probably spend a great deal of time trying to understand the change. I don't know that I would classify that as unstable. But, as always, I could be wrong.

You seem a little...disdainful... of the Pentacostal church. Of course, it isn't (I assume) your church and therefore not as good. It isn't "right" somehow, while being virtually identical to all the other Christian churches to an outsider looking in.

Yes. I guess that's clear from my posts. I don't mean any harm. I just wish everyone would be a little kinder in their assessments of each other. I just don't think we give enough credit to other's abilities to make the decisions that are right for them. But that goes both ways, I think.

ha, my son is 2, thats funny. He has batman pj's that look like those, so maybe not the same. its just funny how your picture catches my eye like that, it feels familiar because it looks like my adonis.

I'm an atheist, and as I'm in my twenties and live in a first world country which isn't the USA, all of my friends, family and aquaintances also have no belief in God. I think you'll find that the majority of us don't worry about it too much.

I get sick and tired of reading these kind of posts. Surely your default position should be no belief in god, then you can read about the various gods that we've come up with over the last few thousand years and pick one once your of an age and intelligence to be better informed?

I mean, that's what I'd probably recommend. If you have to have one, that is.... There's certainly no need to be offended by any of this.

To quote Eric Hoffer; "The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not."

I'd say that all the statements are valid. I obviously wouldn't class all theists as unstable, but I'm sure it does act as an emotional crutch; I mean you're obviously better qualified to comment on this than me, but that tends to be my experience - at least partly the reason.

As I alluded in the first answer, I'm from the UK so the majority of "religious" people I know are immigrants; Sikh, Hindu, Muslim and a kind of crackers Christianity where they jump about and loudly shout "praise" a lot (I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone here, I just geniunely don't know which of the thousand denomanations this is!). So I think the reason that they keep this up is because it maintains a kind of "community" feel for them, meet others from the same place etc.

I'm just not concerned about religion as an atheist. I get annoyed when the nutty fringe in this country try to get Genesis taught as science, but this will never happen. I religion will eventually peter out, even in the US.

A fascinating perspective of religions can be seen in the "cargo cults" of the Pacific islands; kind of "young" religions that show the tendancy towards religion in human nature.

Your article is breif but you make an interesting point about arguments that people who don't have faith make. I don't see the point of blaming god for famines either as we are responsible for our selves and each other. God resides far away from here. Though his spirit is present here.It is up to humanity to solves it's problems rather than using the problems of the planet to justify or explain that there is no god. Often people who are athiests present awkward questions. Your article is amusing that in just a few words you spell out their awkard questions about faith and you quite rightly point out that they have not really thought through the little arguments they present. I am happy to go on believing in god and find prayer and interaction with god rewarding, useful and relaxing. I respect people's right to not beleive if that is what they wish. But I'm not sure I buy or take very seriously agruments against the existence of god. I like the points of your article very much.

But I never claimed my beliefs were rational; they're beliefs, not science or math. I can't prove God's existence. I won't even try. I even accept the possibility that I could be wrong.

On the OP, none of those are particularly logical arguments, but then again, the arguments that most theists use to 'prove' that God exists are equally faulty. God exists. How do you know? He gave us the Bible. How do you know? It says so in the Bible. Huh?

God exists. How do you know? He must exist: look at how complex the universe is. Huh?

God exists. How do you know? Okay, smarty, prove He doesn't! Huh?

I don't get why people of faith feel this need to 'prove' that God exists. It can't be done. Sooner or later, you'll find out for sure. Why bug people about it now?

I completely agree that starving children has nothing to do with god and that is exactly the whole point...what ever happens in the world as far as human species goes is because of humans or other species or nature...god should neither be blamed , nor be praised and be left alone...we dont need to call god great or brutal and neither be concerned about it...if we want to blame humans , praise should logically go to humans and god should be least significant entity and never a point of discussion and must never be given too much importance...we as race should not care whether god exist or not...forget about praising , praying ,complaining it...but as humans we have this nature of fearing something which cannot be seen , proven ...coming to Christianity , well it is too limited religion...and falls short of taking into account entire human species and other species...but why alone Christianity , most religions fall short of this...but we must admire those humans who created religion...they intended good but lack larger perceptive of universe but never the less what ever they did in their limited means of knowledge , they did good job considering their era..

I actually agree with you to an extent. I don't think we should exclude praise of God from our lives, but definitely we should look to others and be truly appreciative of their accomplishments for the good of man.

And, you are right. Christianity, as it is practiced by the masses, is exclusive. This is not, in my opinion, as God intended.

praise and blame are two sides of single coin...if we want to praise god for what he has given to us then blame for what he has not given goes to god...if we praise god for abundance in our life then blame for starving children too goes to god...it cannot be praise god for all goods and blame humans for all bad...that is called sycophancy...

If we praise humans for things like technology then blame for its side effects too goes to humans..if we blame humans for starving kids then praise for tilting land , creating means to distribute food too goes on humans...

Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people,...

As requested from another forum post. I would like to open the thread to all of those who do not believe in God or a creator. I would like to have a logical debate of ideas. I will not relay bible versus as I am not...

I have noticed that many atheists and anti-Christians (as can be seen from the most active forums on Hubpages), have a huge distaste for Christianity primarily because of the contradiction between there being a loving...

Before I go into this discussion, we all need to understand that I am not a scientist, I am not a prophet, and I am not an expert on the topic. I am merely trying to offer my belief in how atheism occurs. And why some...